Feature branch for SDK 2.2.0

[str4d]

Note This code review checklist is intended to serve as a starting point for the author and reviewer, although it may not be appropriate for all types of changes (e.g. fixing a spelling typo in documentation). For more in-depth discussion of how we think about code review, please see Code Review Guidelines.

Author

• [ ] Self-review your own code in GitHub's web interface[^1]
• [ ] Add automated tests as appropriate
• [ ] Update the manual tests[^2] as appropriate
• [ ] Check the code coverage[^3] report for the automated tests
• [ ] Update documentation as appropriate (e.g README.md, Architecture.md, etc.)
• [ ] Run the demo app and try the changes
• [ ] Pull in the latest changes from the main branch and squash your commits before assigning a reviewer[^4]

Reviewer

• [ ] Check the code with the Code Review Guidelines checklist
• [ ] Perform an ad hoc review[^5]
• [ ] Review the automated tests
• [ ] Review the manual tests
• [ ] Review the documentation, README.md, Architecture.md, etc. as appropriate
• [ ] Run the demo app and try the changes[^6]

[^1]: Code often looks different when reviewing the diff in a browser, making it easier to spot potential bugs. [^2]: While we aim for automated testing of the SDK, some aspects require manual testing. If you had to manually test something during development of this pull request, write those steps down. [^3]: While we are not looking for perfect coverage, the tool can point out potential cases that have been missed. Code coverage can be generated with: ./gradlew check for Kotlin modules and ./gradlew connectedCheck -PIS_ANDROID_INSTRUMENTATION_TEST_COVERAGE_ENABLED=true for Android modules. [^4]: Having your code up to date and squashed will make it easier for others to review. Use best judgement when squashing commits, as some changes (such as refactoring) might be easier to review as a separate commit. [^5]: In addition to a first pass using the code review guidelines, do a second pass using your best judgement and experience which may identify additional questions or comments. Research shows that code review is most effective when done in multiple passes, where reviewers look for different things through each pass. [^6]: While the CI server runs the demo app to look for build failures or crashes, humans running the demo app are more likely to notice unexpected log messages, UI inconsistencies, or bad output data. Perform this step last, after verifying the code changes are safe to run locally.

[HonzaR]

I tested this branch behavior to check if the Unable to compute root error while sending funds is resolved. I couldn't reproduce it, but I observed the same bug I reported on the branch zip-320: sending/sent funds is represented as receiving/received now, and the balance of such a trx is also different than it was submitted (i.e., the v_transactions problem, as we discussed internally). That is expected, I suppose.

[HonzaR]

@str4d I can still observe the same behavior as described in my comment above, even after some changes have been made before the zip-320 branch has been updated and merged into this one. What are our next steps here?

[HonzaR]

Conflicts in the changelog resolved

[str4d]

I've restored the previous state of the PR, and fixed the changelog conflict by merging main into the feature branch.

[str4d]

Redid the merge from main because the previous changelog resolution was horrible to undo after the 2.1.3 release.